• Microsoft Corporation v. Sandpiper CDN, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 15, 2026 · IPR2026-00190 · APJ John A Squires · IPR · Director review

  The Director denied institution of Microsoft’s IPR petition based on settled expectations and § 325(d), finding no material Office error in its consideration of the prior art.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDenied

    “challenged patent has been in “force for over nine years.” DD Req. 10. Patent Owner argues that, over that time period, it developed settled expectations that the patent is valid and enforceable. See Dabico Airport Sols. Inc. v. Axa Power Aps, IPR2025-00408, Paper 21 at 2–3 (Director June 18, 2025). Patent Owner’s settled expectations favor discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9; see Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 at 6 (Director May 19, 2025) (precedential) (“Ecto World”). Petitioner’s argument is a general disagreement with the patent examiner’s position and does not set forth an error material to the patentability of the challenged claims. slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,456,053

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.